Primary Navigation

RE: [ANE-2] Re: King David’s Palace etc.

Actually the attempt to link historical rulers to archaeological periods/strata/levels was tried in the mid-20th century especially by German archaeologists &

Message 1 of 3
, Jul 18, 2013

0 Attachment

Actually the attempt to link historical rulers to archaeological periods/strata/levels was tried in the mid-20th century especially by German archaeologists & historians working on Mesopotamia. It failed. If one looks at solid, still-useful volumes like that by Anton Moortgat (The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia) you can see wild proliferation of various “periods” in the third mill. BCE based on kings’ names. None of this has proved useful in the light of later excavations and research. We didn’t dump Lugalzagesi who was clearly a historical figure, but no one would claim that they found his palace if they didn’t have really sound archaeological evidence, preferably an inscription. Likewise, no one now credits all that beautiful naturalistic art to Sargon of Akkad, who did alter the political landscape of Mesopotamia, but rather to his grandson Naram-Sin. It certainly is nice to think that “great men” are responsible for all the ‘great things’ we find, but alas, the reality is often far more complicated.
Trudy S. Kawami

Ian,
While I appreciate your zeal immensely, I must say that it is exceedingly misguided. I would call your perspective ‘studying archaeology in a vacuum’. Actually, this is a trap into which even many brilliant archaeologists have ensnared themselves, astoundingly enough. So, you certainly are not alone.
[SNIP]
Yes, if we were to follow your mantra, we would not only remove David from the record books despite the Tel Dan Stele (and yes, I read Lemche, Athas, et al.), but we would etch out figures such as Lugalzagesi, Ur-Zababa, and even Sargon of Akkad, among many others, though their fingerprints are seen all over the landscape of the ancient world, even by archaeologists! Are you certain that you are ready for such a bold campaign as this? Arguments from silence are precarious foundations on which to build castles, my friend.
[SNIP]

Sincerely,
Douglas Petrovich
Toronto

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Douglas Petrovich

Trudy, “Actually the attempt to link historical rulers to archaeological periods/strata/levels was tried in the mid-20th century especially by German

Message 2 of 3
, Jul 18, 2013

0 Attachment

Trudy,

“Actually the attempt to link historical rulers to archaeological periods/strata/levels was tried in the mid-20th century especially by German archaeologists & historians working on Mesopotamia. It failed.”

Really? Are you aware of the work that was done in recent times at Tell Mozan, Tell Leilan, and Tell Brak? And are you aware of how precise we can match the strata both with Akkadian invasion and specific times during the Akkadian period? Our sophistication has increased greatly since the mid-20th century, and archaeology has made huge strides in connecting strata with rulers’ reigns.

“We didn’t dump Lugalzagesi who was clearly a historical figure,”

And the archaeological evidence that confirms his existence consists of . . . ?

“Likewise, no one now credits all that beautiful naturalistic art to Sargon of Akkad, who did alter the political landscape of Mesopotamia, but rather to his grandson Naram-Sin.”

I fail to see how this is relevant to the present discussion, but you must not be aware that many scholars once again are attributing items such as the bronze head from Nineveh to Sargon (rather than Naram Sin), or at least admitting that this type of item (and thus its technology) is known to have existed during the lifetime of Sargon. Ergo, it clearly could be from Sargon’s day, if Ian allows us to have a Sargon, of course.

Yours,

Douglas Petrovich
Toronto

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Trudy Kawami

I am well aware of the finds at the Syrian sites you mentioned. But that is the point, they are not in Mesopotamia and are not helpful in sorting out the

Message 3 of 3
, Jul 18, 2013

0 Attachment

I am well aware of the finds at the Syrian sites you mentioned. But that is the point, they are not in Mesopotamia and are not helpful in sorting out the pre-Akkadian chronologies in Mesopotamia – which was what I was talking about.

As for “many scholars” attributing the Nineveh head to the reign of Sargon of Akkad, I would be delighted to find out who they are and where they have published such interesting interpretations. Of course the technology of casting copper was widely practiced in Mesopotamia before Sargon of Akkad’s lifetime so the technology itself cannot be an indication of a date. I do not follow your logic in this matter, and would be happy to have references to the relevant studies. I am afraid that “could be” and “if” are not evidence.

“Actually the attempt to link historical rulers to archaeological periods/strata/levels was tried in the mid-20th century especially by German archaeologists & historians working on Mesopotamia. It failed.”

Really? Are you aware of the work that was done in recent times at Tell Mozan, Tell Leilan, and Tell Brak? And are you aware of how precise we can match the strata both with Akkadian invasion and specific times during the Akkadian period? Our sophistication has increased greatly since the mid-20th century, and archaeology has made huge strides in connecting strata with rulers’ reigns.

“We didn’t dump Lugalzagesi who was clearly a historical figure,”

And the archaeological evidence that confirms his existence consists of . . . ?

“Likewise, no one now credits all that beautiful naturalistic art to Sargon of Akkad, who did alter the political landscape of Mesopotamia, but rather to his grandson Naram-Sin.”

I fail to see how this is relevant to the present discussion, but you must not be aware that many scholars once again are attributing items such as the bronze head from Nineveh to Sargon (rather than Naram Sin), or at least admitting that this type of item (and thus its technology) is known to have existed during the lifetime of Sargon. Ergo, it clearly could be from Sargon’s day, if Ian allows us to have a Sargon, of course.

Yours,

Douglas Petrovich
Toronto

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.